+1 (binding) On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:41 AM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (binding) Thanks Xavier for the proposal ! > > I think the source compatibility should be very rare as of now. > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Eno Thereska <eno.there...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > On 12 Dec 2016, at 15:35, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 at 08:07 Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1 (binding) > > >>> > > >>> My only concern was around compatibility. It seems like the one case > it > > >> is > > >>> incompatible would be, at worst, an extremely unusual edge case (and > I > > >>> *think* can be restricted further to "not source compatible for > anyone > > >>> extending the affected classes / interfaces and override affected > > >>> methods"). > > >>> > > >>> -Ewen > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Xavier Léauté <xav...@confluent.io> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > >>>> > > >>>> I would like to start the vote for KIP-100 unless there are any more > > >>>> comments. > > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > >>>> 100+-+Relax+Type+constraints+in+Kafka+Streams+API > > >>>> > > >>>> corresponding PR here https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/2205 > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> Xavier > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang > -- Thanks, Neha
